Finding my way in the chessdevelopment- and training jungle in order to improve my rating.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Lack of a systematic approach

Today I used 2 hours to analyse a chessposition for a RHP-game. Afterwards I had the feeling I had only scratched the surface. I lack a good method to dissect a position. I ordered the book of Karpov "Stellungsbeurteilung und plan", but it is out of stock.

If I can't analyse a position within 2 hours, then a move in an OTB game with only 3 minutes time at average can be called "near random".First I have to learn to analyse a position "at all".Then I have to learn to do it within 3 minutes.

My openings are in for an overhaul, that's for sure! The Tromp is definitely on my shortlist of alternatives, I have the book from Gallagher. To inflict black with a double pawn at move 3 is worth looking at!

I guess in the 2 hours you evaluated candidate moves? This is also a training method proposed by Stoyko. But evaluating a position following «Stellungsbeurteilung und Plan» is quite different. It may involve concrete moves, but the main goal is sort of a balance sheet of all positional elements. The next step (if there is no tactic) is building a general plan. Only then definite moves should be analyzed.

Mouse,I try not to work out the variants but to understand the essence of the position. But I have no clue and end up calculating candidate moves. Calculating variants leads to drowning in the position in stead of getting a helicopterview. Stoyko's system seems to be based on calculating candidate moves.

Tempo, the essence is (I cite from Karpov) 1. material, 2. tactics, 3. Kings safety, 4. control over open files, ranks and diagonals, 5. pawn landscape, strong/weak squares, 6 center and space, 7 piece activity/mobility. I admit this sounds simple, but the point is to figure out which of all these features are important in a position, and to what extent, and how the heck make profit from it. If it were simple, we were all GMs.

However, i've always assumed that you already know basic positional play. Or there is something different from this book. Like it presented the material more clearly, etc.. (For example, I read Euwe's book and it left my head spinning. It was too soon that time. I could'nt follow the lines)